• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Taxing the Wealthy Seems to be Working Well for California.

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
No, you are trying to spin again and I won't let you.

That's NOT what you said in the post (#53) that I first quoted and replied to you (#60).

Want to try again?

I'm sorry but this rampant spinning by you is getting ridiculous. My original statement was clearly not intended to be taken literally, but that's what you decided to do.

If you want to have a discussion about this then you need to do something very specific:

1. Say exactly what you believe my statement in post 53 indicated in your own words.
2. Say what about that statement is incorrect and why.

That will allow us to have a shared basis for discussion.I strongly suspect you either don't understand what I meant or you are deliberately misconstruing it. This will ensure that we move forward with a shared understanding and it will keep you from wriggling away.
 
1. Say exactly what you believe my statement in post 53 indicated in your own words.
2. Say what about that statement is incorrect and why.

I don't see how anyone can dispute this fact:

LA is expensive because huge amounts of people want to live there. Plano is cheap because people don't want to live there. Location, location, location.
 
depends on how much value you put on "affordable housing". if there is nothing more important to a person than affordable housing, Plano is more desirable than LA.

People will give up a lot to own a house - conversely, people will give up a lot to live in CA.

That's why I said earlier about "desireable" is objective and it is different stroke for different folks.

For example, a single guy wants to live in NYC and is willing to pay a bus load for housing because he wants to be in the action/all the fun of a big city but a married couple will not want to live in NYC if they have two kids to raise. They want to live in a nice decent size house with backyard and in a district with good school.
 
I say what I need to say and I have well know links to back me up. See the link I just added above. How could TX has higher population growth than CA for the last 10 years if it is less desirable (per you)?

This apparent contradiction is because "desirable" is being used in two different ways, despite being spelled the same in both cases.

When some people say desirable, they mean in the sense that a 100k car is more desirable than a 20k one, which is definitionally true in a market economy. Given a free choice between the two, most will pick the more expensive one, which is why it costs more.

When you say desirable, you seem to mean popular or something, which is true enough for those cars wherein cheaper ones often sell better. That doesn't mean the cheap car is more "desirable" than the better more expensive one in the first sense of the word.

Two terms spelled the same but have differing connotations isn't usually in human language as evidenced by dictionaries which disambiguate usage.
 
They want to live in a nice decent size house with backyard and in a district with good school.

and the rich parents will move to Arcadia, CA, while the poor parents will move to Plano, TX.
 
Free markets price things incl wages more accurately. As it turns out lower skilled americans were being overpaid in an intl marketplace. Speaking of republicans, conservatives do tend to love the free market.
Correct. An artificial labor shortage caused by protectionism was holding up America's lower class. Even a construction worker with no education could buy a house.

The people pounding the table for free trade, unlimited immigration, and H1B visas conveniently ignore the fact that 99% of the world is desperately poor. The actual market price of your job is pennies per day with no benefits and no pension. I could find millions of people around the world who are willing to build houses and pour concrete in exchange for a bowl of rice and a glass of milk. People in Bangladesh are willing to make clothes for $40/month, and that's with horrendous working conditions.
 
depends on how much value you put on "affordable housing". if there is nothing more important to a person than affordable housing, Plano is more desirable than LA.

People will give up a lot to own a house - conversely, people will give up a lot to live in CA.

And that is why we need to build more low income housing (section 8) in rich neighborhoods so poorer people and their children can partake of the better wealthy schools and low crime environment so they can have a more privileged chance in life.

I'm sure rich white California liberals will embrace this policy with open arms in their more affluent neighborhoods in order to set an example to those bigoted conservatives, especially those Texans.

http://thehill.com/regulation/244620-obamas-bid-to-diversify-wealthy-neighborhoods

The Obama administration is moving forward with regulations designed to help diversify America’s wealthier neighborhoods, drawing fire from critics who decry the proposal as executive overreach in search of an “unrealistic utopia.”


A final Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) rule due out this month is aimed at ending decades of deep-rooted segregation around the country.


The regulations would use grant money as an incentive for communities to build affordable housing in more affluent areas while also taking steps to upgrade poorer areas with better schools, parks, libraries, grocery stores and transportation routes as part of a gentrification of those communities.“HUD is working with communities across the country to fulfill the promise of equal opportunity for all,” a HUD spokeswoman said. “The proposed policy seeks to break down barriers to access to opportunity in communities supported by HUD funds.”


It’s a tough sell for some conservatives. Among them is Rep. Paul Gosar (R-Ariz.), who argued that the administration “shouldn’t be holding hostage grant monies aimed at community improvement based on its unrealistic utopian ideas of what every community should resemble.”


“American citizens and communities should be free to choose where they would like to live and not be subject to federal neighborhood engineering at the behest of an overreaching federal government,” said Gosar, who is leading an effort in the House to block the regulations.


Civil rights advocates, meanwhile, are praising the plan, arguing that it is needed to break through decades-old barriers that keep poor and minority families trapped in hardscrabble neighborhoods.


“We have a history of putting affordable housing in poor communities,” said Debby Goldberg, vice president at the National Fair Housing Alliance.
HUD says it is obligated to take the action under the Fair Housing Act of 1968, which prohibited direct and intentional housing discrimination, such as a real estate agent not showing a home in a wealthy neighborhood to a black family or a bank not providing a loan based on someone’s race.
The agency is also looking to root out more subtle forms of discrimination that take shape in local government policies that unintentionally harm minority communities, known as “disparate impact.”



“This rule is not about forcing anyone to live anywhere they don’t want to,” said Margery Turner, senior vice president at the left-leaning Urban Institute. “It’s really about addressing long-standing practices that prevent people from living where they want to.”


“In our country, decades of public policies and institutional practices have built deeply segregated and unequal neighborhoods,” Turner said.
Children growing up in poor communities have less of a chance of succeeding in life, because they face greater exposure to violence and crime, and less access to quality education and health facilities, Turner suggested.
“Segregation is clearly a problem that is blocking upward mobility for children growing up today,” she said.


To qualify for certain funds under the regulations, cities would be required to examine patterns of segregation in neighborhoods and develop plans to address it. Those that don’t could see the funds they use to improve blighted neighborhoods disappear, critics of the rule say.


The regulations would apply to roughly 1,250 local governments.
Hans von Spakovsky, a fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation, called the Obama administration “too race conscious.”


“It’s a sign that this administration seems to take race into account on everything,” Spakovsky said.


Republicans are trying to block the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing rule. Before passing HUD’s funding bill this week, the GOP-led House approved Gosar’s amendment prohibiting the agency from following through with the rule.


Though segregationist policies were outlawed long ago, civil rights advocates say housing discrimination persists.


HUD is looking to break down many barriers, but Gosar suggested the regulation would have negative repercussions.


“Instead of living with neighbors you like and choose, this breaks up the core fabric of how we start to look at communities,” Gosar said. “That just brings unease to everyone in that area.”


“People have to feel comfortable where they live,” he added. “If I don’t feel comfortable in my own backyard, where do I feel comfortable?”


Critics of the rule say it would allow HUD to assert authority over local zoning laws. The agency could dictate what types of homes are built where and who can live in those homes, said Gosar, who believes local communities should make those decisions for themselves rather than relying on the federal government.


If enacted, the rule could depress property values as cheaper homes crop up in wealthy neighborhoods and raise taxes, Gosar warned.


It could also tilt the balance of political power as more minorities are funneled into Republican-leaning neighborhoods, he suggested.


The Supreme Court is expected to weigh in on housing discrimination in a related case in the coming weeks. At issue is whether government policies that unintentionally create a disparate impact for minority communities violate federal laws against segregation.


The Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs is facing accusations that it makes low-income housing funds more readily available in minority neighborhoods than in white neighborhoods. This promotes segregation, critics argue, by encouraging minorities to continue living in poor communities where government assistance is available.


Court observers say the case could have a profound impact on HUD’s rule.
 
Tech bubble, just wait till it pops.

CA economy is basically Silicon Valley and 20 million farmers, with a smattering of other things along the coast. Theres 11 million people on Medi-cal in the state(33% of the population) thats more than the population of most states.


Umm Fail:thumbsdown:

There are only about 3.2 million farmers in the US. Obviously not 20 million in California.
 
I lived in TX and currently live in silly valley. This is my 2cents:

Yes, CA taxes are high and very progressive. TX has no income tax. It's much, much easier to make a living in TX for average people. CA government tries to level the playing field with social programs, but in the end of the day there isn't that much upward mobility anymore, despite state policies. There is more segregation in CA than TX based on wealth. Crappy CA rural areas are not better than crappy TX rural areas, either.

Smart people do very well in the big CA cities (SF, LA, SD), and there just isn't a lot of land left to build more housing. Poorer people have to commute from far away, run down places to work. VC doesn't care about taxes- tech employees who cash in on IPO $ pay most of the taxes anyway.
 
I lived in TX and currently live in silly valley. This is my 2cents:

Yes, CA taxes are high and very progressive. TX has no income tax. It's much, much easier to make a living in TX for average people. CA government tries to level the playing field with social programs, but in the end of the day there isn't that much upward mobility anymore, despite state policies. There is more segregation in CA than TX based on wealth. Crappy CA rural areas are not better than crappy TX rural areas, either.

Smart people do very well in the big CA cities (SF, LA, SD), and there just isn't a lot of land left to build more housing. Poorer people have to commute from far away, run down places to work. VC doesn't care about taxes- tech employees who cash in on IPO $ pay most of the taxes anyway.

Lol wut?

The further you go out from the cities the bigger the lots and the nicer the houses are. So no, the rural areas aren't crappy like Texas' rural areas (if that's even true).
 
I lived in TX and currently live in silly valley. This is my 2cents:

Yes, CA taxes are high and very progressive. TX has no income tax. It's much, much easier to make a living in TX for average people. CA government tries to level the playing field with social programs, but in the end of the day there isn't that much upward mobility anymore, despite state policies. There is more segregation in CA than TX based on wealth. Crappy CA rural areas are not better than crappy TX rural areas, either.

I am COMPLETELY shocked and APPALLED! :colbert:

Lol wut?

The further you go out from the cities the bigger the lots and the nicer the houses are. So no, the rural areas aren't crappy like Texas' rural areas (if that's even true).

lol wut?

Or do you want to portray yourself as someone that actually lives in the areas of the previous poster. Pathetic progressives, denying their own type AND those that prove them wrong when it doesn't serve their purpose. Pathetic - and not surprising in the least.
 
I am COMPLETELY shocked and APPALLED! :colbert:



lol wut?

Or do you want to portray yourself as someone that actually lives in the areas of the previous poster. Pathetic progressives, denying their own type AND those that prove them wrong when it doesn't serve their purpose. Pathetic - and not surprising in the least.

California is like most places where the visionaries are progressive and the farming areas are backwards in more ways than one; the government handouts also flows from the former to the latter, and I often really wish the money was spent on more worthwhile causes.
 
Lol wut?

The further you go out from the cities the bigger the lots and the nicer the houses are. So no, the rural areas aren't crappy like Texas' rural areas (if that's even true).

When I say rural area, I don't mean the communities adjacent to cities. Many rural communities in CA are chronically economically depressed (think State of Jefferson type counties). I suppose the scenery there is nicer than some parts of TX, but it doesn't matter when there aren't jerbs.

I feel for the people who work service (food, custodial, etc) jobs in CA cities. Wages are not that much higher, but cost of living is insane. End up spending a huge chunk of the day commuting to serve the tech masters and have no time left for family.

No state/local policies stand a chance against big money flooding the state.
 
It seems like most of this thread is just arguing semantics.

California has had high demand for decades. Most areas in high demand are built out so growth has slowed along with supply of new housing . Still demand is high enough that prices stay high. It's a mature market.

Historically Texas hasn't had had that same level of demand. The supply has remained unconstrained due to lax zoning and ample space for new construction along with inexpensive labor for construction.

That being said the quadrangle of Houston, Austin, San Antonio, and Dallas/Ft Worth is one of the fastest growing areas of the country.
us_fastest_growing_cities.png


Housing prices increases are reflecting that:
saupload_150508_RealMedianHousePricesUSvsTexas.png


In the previous decade Texas housing was pretty divorced from the rest of the country even while growing. We're now seeing increases in housing prices similar to the rest of the country.

The lax zoning and ample space can't be overstated enough in keeping prices reasonable. Houston is working to complete its third outer loop which when complete will encompass an area the size of Rhode Island.
 
The lax zoning and ample space can't be overstated enough in keeping prices reasonable. Houston is working to complete its third outer loop which when complete will encompass an area the size of Rhode Island.

The fundamental limitation to growth is transportation. As the city center grows, roads become gridlocked to the point that outer areas become undesirable due to time constraints in a day. For example on the east coast the relatively affordable areas are 2hr+ commute to big city jobs.
 
The fundamental limitation to growth is transportation. As the city center grows, roads become gridlocked to the point that outer areas become undesirable due to time constraints in a day. For example on the east coast the relatively affordable areas are 2hr+ commute to big city jobs.

Well that's definitely becoming a problem in Austin. Houston on the other hand doesn't really have a city center. The downtown area is less impressive than Pittsburgh because downtown is boxed in I45, I10, and 59. So instead the various business centers are spread all over the area. Besides downtown, there's the medical center SW of the city, NASA and other aerospace SE of the city, petrochem way south and east of the city, business areas stretching from downtown to NW and SW areas, the ship channel E of the city, and residential areas spread all over.

Unlike a lot of the country the terrain doesn't influence where anything goes since it's all flat coastal plains. While rush hour is generally towards or away from downtown a large portion are driving other ways to work.
 
Lol wut?

The further you go out from the cities the bigger the lots and the nicer the houses are. So no, the rural areas aren't crappy like Texas' rural areas (if that's even true).

You don't know the difference between a rural area and a suburb.
 
This apparent contradiction is because "desirable" is being used in two different ways, despite being spelled the same in both cases.

When some people say desirable, they mean in the sense that a 100k car is more desirable than a 20k one, which is definitionally true in a market economy. Given a free choice between the two, most will pick the more expensive one, which is why it costs more.

When you say desirable, you seem to mean popular or something, which is true enough for those cars wherein cheaper ones often sell better. That doesn't mean the cheap car is more "desirable" than the better more expensive one in the first sense of the word.

Two terms spelled the same but have differing connotations isn't usually in human language as evidenced by dictionaries which disambiguate usage.

I don't much care for the car example.

If you isolate a specific feature of CA with all else being equal and compare to TX then you see the individual component strengths / weaknesses. For example the geography / weather of CA vx TX, then I think 95%+ would prefer the geography / weather of CA to TX.

By the same token if you isolated the tax rates then TX wins hands down. Isolate the cost of property, TX wins hands down.

CA has a lot of natural advantages, weather and geography being the obvious ones. They have many others including its position on the west coast, where a huge percentage of imports from the east come into the USA. CA also arguably has more exploitable natural resources than any other state, and that includes oil (oil rigs dot the shore line and are all over the place in Orange County).

But despite all of its natural advantages, CA is losing business to TX while CA is simultaneously much deeper in debt per capita and has far less cushion in both its budget and its 'rainy day fund'. Moreover, CA has a far higher percentage of people in poverty than TX once adjusted for cost of living, in fact they are the highest in the country (Nevada is #2).

Meanwhile people are flocking into TX despite the fact that 2/3 of TX is, in the absence of man-made constructs, not much more than a flat desert with some oil and natural gas.

If no one has gotten it yet, that's a damning indictment of the way CA is and has been being governed. It is also a ringing endorsement of the efforts of TX Gov Rick Perry and his successor Greg Abbott.
 
I don't much care for the car example.

If you isolate a specific feature of CA with all else being equal and compare to TX then you see the individual component strengths / weaknesses. For example the geography / weather of CA vx TX, then I think 95%+ would prefer the geography / weather of CA to TX.

By the same token if you isolated the tax rates then TX wins hands down. Isolate the cost of property, TX wins hands down.

CA has a lot of natural advantages, weather and geography being the obvious ones. They have many others including its position on the west coast, where a huge percentage of imports from the east come into the USA. CA also arguably has more exploitable natural resources than any other state, and that includes oil (oil rigs dot the shore line and are all over the place in Orange County).

But despite all of its natural advantages, CA is losing business to TX while CA is simultaneously much deeper in debt per capita and has far less cushion in both its budget and its 'rainy day fund'. Moreover, CA has a far higher percentage of people in poverty than TX once adjusted for cost of living, in fact they are the highest in the country (Nevada is #2).

Meanwhile people are flocking into TX despite the fact that 2/3 of TX is, in the absence of man-made constructs, not much more than a flat desert with some oil and natural gas.

If no one has gotten it yet, that's a damning indictment of the way CA is and has been being governed. It is also a ringing endorsement of the efforts of TX Gov Rick Perry and his successor Greg Abbott.

Some are going to enjoy the extremely "blue state" nature of CA politics and that will be a factor in living there. Likewise some others will prefer the extremely red state nature of TX. Nothing wrong with that. Those factors, all the ones you mentioned, and lots more (location of family, job opportunities in your field, etc) will ultimately guide someone's decision on where to live. And there's nothing inherently wrong with someone wanting to live in a high tax/high service state model if that's what they prefer. What I don't think I've ever heard someone say though is "Ya know, I really want to move to California because of how much they tax rich people, that's really what makes it such a great place."
 
Well that's definitely becoming a problem in Austin. Houston on the other hand doesn't really have a city center. The downtown area is less impressive than Pittsburgh because downtown is boxed in I45, I10, and 59. So instead the various business centers are spread all over the area. Besides downtown, there's the medical center SW of the city, NASA and other aerospace SE of the city, petrochem way south and east of the city, business areas stretching from downtown to NW and SW areas, the ship channel E of the city, and residential areas spread all over.

Unlike a lot of the country the terrain doesn't influence where anything goes since it's all flat coastal plains. While rush hour is generally towards or away from downtown a large portion are driving other ways to work.

Spreading out doesn't necessarily fix the problem because it trades one form of problem for another. It might be easier to get to work if you happen to find something closer, but then also harder to get to other centers/areas for other activity you might partake in (visit family/friends, catch a show, etc).

Pretty much every large city ever eventually has to start building upwards, there's just no way around the fact that enough people want to be reasonably close to everything.

I don't much care for the car example.

If you isolate a specific feature of CA with all else being equal and compare to TX then you see the individual component strengths / weaknesses. For example the geography / weather of CA vx TX, then I think 95%+ would prefer the geography / weather of CA to TX.

By the same token if you isolated the tax rates then TX wins hands down. Isolate the cost of property, TX wins hands down.

CA has a lot of natural advantages, weather and geography being the obvious ones. They have many others including its position on the west coast, where a huge percentage of imports from the east come into the USA. CA also arguably has more exploitable natural resources than any other state, and that includes oil (oil rigs dot the shore line and are all over the place in Orange County).

But despite all of its natural advantages, CA is losing business to TX while CA is simultaneously much deeper in debt per capita and has far less cushion in both its budget and its 'rainy day fund'. Moreover, CA has a far higher percentage of people in poverty than TX once adjusted for cost of living, in fact they are the highest in the country (Nevada is #2).

Meanwhile people are flocking into TX despite the fact that 2/3 of TX is, in the absence of man-made constructs, not much more than a flat desert with some oil and natural gas.

If no one has gotten it yet, that's a damning indictment of the way CA is and has been being governed. It is also a ringing endorsement of the efforts of TX Gov Rick Perry and his successor Greg Abbott.

The math here is frankly very simple. A house/home in the bay area is something like twice the price of TX. That means plenty of buyers would rather have 1 house in the former than 2 in the latter (or 1 and a ton of money left over). The market prices trivially demonstrate the degree of preference that buyers hold. If that preference doesn't exist, then bay area prices would drop like a rock.

Put another way, if your start selling a downmarket $10k car, I'm sure many buying $20k cars would flock over, but many would still stick with the $20k one for what should be obvious reasons. That in no way means the $10k is somehow more "desirable" in the first sense of the term.
 
I don't much care for the car example.

If you isolate a specific feature of CA with all else being equal and compare to TX then you see the individual component strengths / weaknesses. For example the geography / weather of CA vx TX, then I think 95%+ would prefer the geography / weather of CA to TX.

By the same token if you isolated the tax rates then TX wins hands down. Isolate the cost of property, TX wins hands down.

CA has a lot of natural advantages, weather and geography being the obvious ones. They have many others including its position on the west coast, where a huge percentage of imports from the east come into the USA. CA also arguably has more exploitable natural resources than any other state, and that includes oil (oil rigs dot the shore line and are all over the place in Orange County).

But despite all of its natural advantages, CA is losing business to TX while CA is simultaneously much deeper in debt per capita and has far less cushion in both its budget and its 'rainy day fund'. Moreover, CA has a far higher percentage of people in poverty than TX once adjusted for cost of living, in fact they are the highest in the country (Nevada is #2).

Meanwhile people are flocking into TX despite the fact that 2/3 of TX is, in the absence of man-made constructs, not much more than a flat desert with some oil and natural gas.

If no one has gotten it yet, that's a damning indictment of the way CA is and has been being governed. It is also a ringing endorsement of the efforts of TX Gov Rick Perry and his successor Greg Abbott.

So you arbitrarily assigned what you thought the inherent strengths and weaknesses of each state were and then decided recent growth was the way to measure how well something is being governed. This is exhibit A of basically just concocting a story to tell you what you already want to believe. It's not a damning indictment, it's incompetent policy analysis on your part.
 
The economy is always healthier when those you make more are taxed more. However, the way we hand out things to the poor just hurts the economy. From my experience working in service jobs and as an employer, many of the poor just work long enough until they can collect unemployment or work under the table so they can get everything subsidized while they spend tons of money on alcohol and drugs. (not everyone but this is very common)

If people can't find work, the government should help find them work while the recipients of welfare are forced into public service/projects like constructing a new road. It's a known fact that people become even more lazy when they don't work at all.

What's really crazy is the fact that in my state, construction workers must be paid $26 an hour or higher for state contracts while I just saw a listing for the state asking for a PhD paying $18.50. That is just wrong. Not that construction work is not hard but the fact that after investing so much in education, you end up with nothing.

The other problem is the fact that there is such a huge gap between the poorest people and the richest people in the same area. China is a great place to see a huge gap.

The biggest problem I see is that money is spend poorly here with our tax dollars. If we invested more in infrastructure tech/science and general technology, the country would be far a head of anyone else.
 
Spreading out doesn't necessarily fix the problem because it trades one form of problem for another. It might be easier to get to work if you happen to find something closer, but then also harder to get to other centers/areas for other activity you might partake in (visit family/friends, catch a show, etc).

Pretty much every large city ever eventually has to start building upwards, there's just no way around the fact that enough people want to be reasonably close to everything.



The math here is frankly very simple. A house/home in the bay area is something like twice the price of TX. That means plenty of buyers would rather have 1 house in the former than 2 in the latter (or 1 and a ton of money left over). The market prices trivially demonstrate the degree of preference that buyers hold. If that preference doesn't exist, then bay area prices would drop like a rock.

Put another way, if your start selling a downmarket $10k car, I'm sure many buying $20k cars would flock over, but many would still stick with the $20k one for what should be obvious reasons. That in no way means the $10k is somehow more "desirable" in the first sense of the term.

Spreading out solves some problems and exacerbates others. While agree with continued growth cities have to eventually build vertically, the constraints that push for vertical growth aren't the same for every city. Population density is a decent proxy for vertical building. In Houstons case it has the fourth largest city by population but is around 14th in population density.

37sprawltable2.jpg

http://www.accessmagazine.org/articles/fall-2010/density-doesnt-tell-us-sprawl/

So Houston has a long way to go before it ends up anywhere near as dense as the North East or parts of California.

The downsides of sprawl are the lack of public transit and no ability to walk anywhere among others. Texas also has very high property taxes to offset the lack of income tax. Finally the lack of zoning means that any desirable neighborhood has an HOA to perform that function.
 
Back
Top